>>>>>In spite of kgdb, shouldn't it have that \n anyways in case some other code>>>>>gets added in the future after the macro? Or are you saying that there should>>>>>never be any code ever after that macro?>>>>>>>>Sure if there is mainline code added after that macro we add the \n.>>>>But only if it makes sense to add code there, which it didn't in kgdb.

>>>Was that because with recent enough tools and config options there was>>>enough annotations so GDB could finally figure out where things had>>>stopped? Thanks.>>>>The reason Linus said he didn't allow George's kgdb mm patch to >>be integrating into the kernel a year or two ago was that Amit and>>George had significantly different implementations. So Amit, Tom, >>George, and the rest of the kgdb development gang worked together >>and came up with a unified version that we now support on SourceForge.

>>Tom rolled up a mm patch back in December for Andrew and then the>>integration process stopped. I suggest we work together on getting>>the kgdb patch back into the mm series and permanently into the kernel>>like the kexec code and then we can avoid this kernel development>>obfuscation.

> Hi,> Is there any movement on this?

Jason Wessel has taken up KGDB maintenance for upstream. We're now working on merging the several diverse trees together.